Complaint for injunction and declaratory reliefonekit.enr-corp.com/1004994/Complaint for injunction...
Transcript of Complaint for injunction and declaratory reliefonekit.enr-corp.com/1004994/Complaint for injunction...
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
IN AND FOR THE SECOND
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
WILLIAM LAYTON LYONS,
FRANCESCA CORREA, by and through
her guardian Lorraine Rodriguez,
JOHN BODACK, and THE ADVOCACY
CENTER FOR PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES, INC.,
Plaintiffs, CASE NO:
vs
THEAGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES, a State of Florida agency,
Defendant
_______________________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby petition this Court for
declaratory and injunctive relief and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action is filed by three persons with developmental disabilities (DD) who
receive home and community based services under a Medicaid Waiver for persons with
DD (waiver recipients), and the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc., (the
Center), the Florida not-for-profit, protection and advocacy agency that provides legal
and advocacy services to all persons with disabilities under federal mandate.
2. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment as Defendant, the Agency for Persons with
Disabilities, has placed in doubt the right to an administrative hearing for waiver
2
recipients who timely request a hearing after receipt of notice of an agency’s adverse
action.
3. Plaintiffs believe that waiver recipients have the right to a fair hearing under 42
U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3), 42 C.F.R. 431.200 (2), chapters 393 and 120, Florida Statutes1.
4. Plaintiffs have a need for a declaration, as on December 1, 2008, the Defendant
Agency for Persons with Disabilities, (APD), initiated a process of issuing Final Orders
Denying Hearing Requests, (final order), to approximately 3500 waiver recipients out of
the 5,000 waiver recipients who filed a request for fair hearing to challenge tier
assignments made as a result of the implementation of section 393.0661, Florida Statutes.
APD announced that it would refer for administrative hearing a total of 700 hearing
requests.
5. The rights of the individual plaintiffs and those of thousands of waiver recipients
whose interests are represented here by the Center are antagonistic to those of Defendant
APD. A declaration that waiver recipients have a right to a fair hearing will serve to
provide relief to all the individuals affected by APD’s action.
6. Plaintiffs also seek temporary injunctive relief as stated in the accompanying
Motion for Temporary Injunction. Waiver recipients are entitled to continuation of
services that they are currently receiving through the completion of the fair hearing
process. The issuance of the final orders means the immediate cessation of services as of
the date the Order goes into effect. For the reasons stated in this complaint and in
Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction, Plaintiffs contend that the final orders violate
the due process rights of waiver recipients and cause waiver recipients irreparable
material harm to their health and safety.
1 The statutory framework will be discussed below.
3
7. For the reasons stated in this complaint, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a
permanent injunction ordering APD to afford all the affected waiver recipients their due
process rights to present their case before an Administrative Law Judge.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This court has jurisdiction on this matter pursuant to section 86.021, Florida
Statutes.
9. Venue in Leon County, Florida is proper as the central office of Plaintiff
Advocacy Center and Defendant APD are located therein.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff WILLIAM LAYTON LYONS is a 33 year old resident of Baker County,
Florida. He resides with his parents at 249 College Street, Macclenny, Florida 32063.
Mr. Lyons is a person with digestive disorders, mental retardation, neurological
disorders, and numerous physical and orthopedic impairments. Mr. Lyons is a recipient
of Medicaid services through the Florida Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Waiver
(DD Waiver) and a client of APD.
11. Plaintiff FRANCESCA CORREA is 19 years old and a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida. She resides at 201 East 64th Street, Hialeah, Florida 33013. Ms. Correa
lives with her mother and guardian, LORRAINE RODRIGUEZ, her twin sister,
Nadieska, and her brother. Both Francesca and Nadieska are autistic and are recipients of
Medicaid DD waiver services and clients of APD.
12. Plaintiff JOHN BODACK is a 27 year old resident of Hillsborough County,
Florida. He resides with his father and brother at 4247 Forester Lane, Tampa, Florida
33618. Mr. Bodack has a benign brain tumor that impairs his functional abilities. He is a
4
recipient of DD waiver services and is a client of APD.
13. The ADVOCACY CENTER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, INC. (the
Center) is a not-for-profit-corporation serving as Florida’s federally funded protection
and advocacy system for individuals with disabilities. The Center maintains offices in
Tampa, Hollywood and Tallahassee. Its main office is located at 2728 Centerview Drive,
Suite 102, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The Center’s mission is to advance the quality of
life, dignity, equality, self-determination, and freedom of choice of persons with
disabilities through collaboration, education, advocacy, as well as legal and legislative
strategies.
14. The Center is authorized by federal law to “pursue legal, administrative, and other
appropriate remedies or approaches to ensure the protection of, and advocacy for, the
rights of individuals within the State who are or who may be eligible for treatment,
services, or habilitation, or who are being considered for a change in living
arrangements.” See 42 USC 15041 SEC. 141; 42 USC 15043 SEC. 143(a)(2)(A)(i). As
such, the Advocacy Center represents the interests of all persons with developmental
disabilities in the state of Florida.
15. Defendant APD is a State of Florida agency charged with the administration of
the DD Waiver under an agreement with the single state Medicaid agency, the Florida
Agency for Health Care Administration. APD’s address is 4030 Esplanade Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950.
BACKGROUND
Florida’s DD Waiver
16. Medicaid home and community-based services (HCBS) waiver programs are
5
authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c) and governed by 42 C.F.R. §§ 441.300-.310. Waiver
programs enable states to provide home and community-based services to individuals
with developmental disabilities or mental retardation who would otherwise be
institutionalized.
17. The Florida DD Waiver is a Medicaid program whose purpose is to maintain
Florida residents with DD in a home setting with supporting services necessary to prevent
institutionalization. Florida Statutes Chapter 409 and the Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 59G-
13.080 authorize the DD waiver.
18. Section 393.062, Florida Statutes provides legislative intent for the DD waiver:
…”the greatest priority shall be given to the development and implementation of
community-based services that will enable individuals with developmental
disabilities to achieve their greatest potential for independent and productive
living, enable them to live in their own homes or in residences located in their
own communities, and permit them to be diverted or removed from unnecessary
institutional placements...”.
19. There are approximately 30,000 waiver recipients in Florida. All waiver
recipients are entitled to receive Medicaid services in intermediate care facilities for the
developmentally disabled, (ICF/DD), either private or state owned, with Medicaid paying
the cost. All waiver recipients chose to receive services in the community through the
DD waiver.
20. Waiver recipients reside in a variety of settings. Some reside independently with
supports, some reside in community group homes and others reside with family members.
They include children, adults and the elderly.
21. Waiver recipients have developmental disabilities such as Autism, Cerebral Palsy,
Mental Retardation, Prader Willi Syndrome and Spina Bifida. Many also have behavior
problems, mental illness and a variety of complex medical conditions such as seizure
6
disorder, heart problems, paralysis, dementia, diabetes, kidney disease and blindness.
22. The Federal Government funds a share of cost to states for Medicaid services. 2
The share of costs percentage for ICF/DD and waiver services is the same.
Institutionalization is costlier than community based services. The average annual cost of
a Medicaid ICF/DD is $148,000. The average annual cost of a Medicaid waiver
recipient’s services is $36,000.3
23. In order to receive waiver services, waiver recipients undergo a process of
assessment and evaluations to determine need for specific services. Once the needs are
identified, each service requested for the recipient goes through a prior authorization
process which determines if the service is “medically necessary” pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 59G-1.010(166), Florida Administrative Code . If the service does
not meet medical necessity standards, the request for the service is denied.
24. All services that waiver recipients are presently receiving have been determined
to be medically necessary. Once the services are approved, the waiver recipient is issued
a cost plan that describes the amount, duration, scope and cost of each service.
Tier System
25. Prior to the amendment to Section 393.0661, Florida Statutes, only two waivers
existed – the DD Waiver which had no cap on costs of home based services and the
Family and Supported Living Waiver which had an annual cost budget limit of $14,972.
26. In 2007, the Florida Legislature amended section 393.0661, Florida Statutes to
2 At the current time, the Federal Government pays Florida 55.4% of every dollar spent on Medicaid
services, including DD waiver services. Source, Snipes, Dyke, “Agency for Health Care Administration
Overview of Schedule VIIIB Reductions,” December 16, 2008, page 2. 3 For a more complete analysis of costs of institutions vs community services see: Smith, Gary. “Status
Report: Litigation Concerning Home And Community Services For People With Disabilities”, January 9,
2007, p. 2
7
implement a four-tiered waiver system to serve clients with developmental disabilities in
the DD and Family and Supported Living Waivers.
27. In order to implement the tier system, the Legislature directed the Agency for
Health Care Administration, (AHCA), in consultation with APD to seek federal approval
for the additional tiers. See § 393.0661(3), Florida Statutes.
28. Following the Legislative direction, AHCA applied to the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, (CMS) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for
two new waivers implementing tiers 2 and 3. CMS approved the tiers in February, 2008.
A copy of the CMS approval letter and tier 2 waiver application pages 1-10 and
Appendix F-1:1 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A to this complaint.
29. The Legislature also directed APD to assign all waiver recipients to a tier based
on a “valid assessment instrument, client characteristics, and other appropriate
assessment methods.” See § 393.0661(3), Florida Statutes.
30. Tier 1 is “limited to clients who have service needs that cannot be met in tier 2, 3,
or 4 for intensive medical or adaptive needs and that are essential for avoiding
institutionalization, or who possess behavioral problems that are exceptional in intensity,
duration, or frequency and present a substantial risk of harm to themselves or others.”
See § 393.0661(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
31. Tier 2 is “limited to clients whose service needs include a licensed residential
facility and greater than 5 hours per day in residential habilitation services or clients in
supported living who receive greater than 6 hours a day of in-home support services.
Total annual expenditures under tier two may not exceed $55,000.00 per client each
year.” See § 393.0661(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
8
32. Tier 3 is “clients requiring residential placements, clients in independent or
supported living situations, and clients who live in their family home. Total annual
expenditures under tier three may not exceed $35,000 per client each year.” See §
393.0661(3)(c), Florida Statutes.
33. Tier 4 is described by the legislature as “clients in independent or supported living
situations and clients who live in their family home. An increase to the number of
services available to clients in this tier shall not take effect prior to July 1, 2008. Total
annual expenditures under tier four may not exceed $14,792 per client each year.” See §
393.0661(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
34. APD promulgated Rules 65G-4.0021 - .0025, Florida Administrative Code. Rule
65G-4.0021, Florida Administrative Code sets out the criteria APD uses for individual
tier assignments. APD evaluates factors such as the client’s level of need in functional,
medical, and behavioral areas, client characteristics, the Agency approved assessment
process, and support planning information; the client’s service needs as determined
through the Agency’s prior service authorization process to be medically necessary; the
client’s age and the current living setting; and the availability of supports and services
from other sources, including natural and community supports. See Rule 65G-4.0021(1),
F.A.C.
35. By APD’s own projection, the tier assignment process resulted in reductions in
services to 7,527 waiver recipients.
9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Notices of Tier Assignments
36. On or about September 2nd
, 2008, APD issued and mailed to 30,000 waiver
recipients a Notice of Tier Assignment (notice). Copies of the notices sent to Plaintiffs
Lyons and Bodack are incorporated herein and attached hereto as Composite Exhibit B.
37. Plaintiffs’ notices are representative of the notice sent to the other waiver
recipients. Save for a couple of generic variations, the notices were the same for all
waiver recipients, changing only to identify the waiver recipient and the tier assignment.
38. The notices did not specify APD’s reasons that formed the basis for APD’s
assignment to a particular tier for the individual waiver recipient to whom the notice was
addressed; did not cite the specific rule or statutory section upon which his or her
individual tier assignment decision was based; failed to contain any indication of the
manner in which APD applied the statutes and rules to a person’s circumstances; and
failed to state facts that related to the specific requirement of the statute or rules
pertaining to the individual’s tier assignment.
39. The notices included provisions of the right to a hearing and instructions for filing
a hearing request. Of the 7527 waiver recipients who were adversely affected by the tier
assignment, approximately 5,000 waiver recipients filed timely requests for hearing. The
large majority of affected waiver recipients did not have legal representation at the time
the petitions were filed.
40. Upon information and belief, of the 5000 waiver recipients filing requests for
hearing, some used form petitions, some used form letters and some simply wrote that
they disagreed with the tier assignment because it would reduce services they needed.
10
Final Orders Denying Hearing Request
41. In November 2008 APD issued a press release stating that out of 4300 requests
for hearing on tier assignments, APD would issue a Final Order Denying Hearing
Request (final order) to 3500 waiver recipients who requested hearings. Only six
hundred hearing requests out of the 5000 filed would be forwarded to the Division of
Administrative Hearings (DOAH). A copy of the APD press release is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
42. Prior to the issuance of the Final Orders, APD issued to some individuals form
Orders of Incomplete Hearing Requests with a checklist of items missing in the hearing
requests and provided for 10 days to submit the information. A copy of one such order is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
43. The Order of Incomplete Hearing Request stated that failure to submit the
information would cause the hearing request to be dismissed. Many families and support
coordinators did not understand what was required, and sought assistance from various
stakeholders and legal service organizations. It is unknown how many individuals failed
to submit timely information.
44. On December 1, APD began issuing generic final orders. A copy of the final
orders issued to Plaintiffs Lyons and Correa are attached and incorporated herein as
Composite Exhibit E.
45. Upon information and belief, APD to date has issued 300 final orders. The Center
has received final orders for 11 of its clients.
11
46. Citing statutes, rules and case law, the final order gives four general reasons why
the APD denied the hearing request: the tier placement is based on a change in state law;
the hearing request does not state facts that demonstrate there was an error in the tier
assignment; the hearing request did not contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts
alleged including specific facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or
modification; and the hearing requests did not allege facts that relate to the specific
requirements to the statute or rule.
47. The final order cites Blackwood v. Agency for Health Care Administration, State
of Florida, 896 So.2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) as supporting authority for the dismissal.
48. On page 3 of the final order, APD states that “the request for administrative
hearing is DENIED and this cause is DISMISSED without prejudice.” (Emphasis in
original).
49. Also on page 3, the final order contains a statement of rights advising that the
petitioner may “either file an amended petition or file an appeal of this final decision”
and refers petitioners to Rule 28-106, Florida Administrative Code and Ch. 120.68,
Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added).
50. No copies of the statute, case law or rules are attached to the Final Order. Waiver
recipients are referred to the APD website for information and reference to 393.0661,
Florida Statutes and Rules 65G-4.0021 through .0025, Florida Administrative Code.
51. The APD website does not contain copies of Rule 28-106, Florida Administrative
Code; the Blackwood case or section 120.68, Florida Statutes.
52. The final order states that an amended petition “must be consistent with the
requirement of the Notice of Hearing Rights and filed within ten (10) days of the date of
12
this order.” No copy of the Notice of Hearing Rights is attached to the final order.
53. Each final order is dated in two or three different places. Confusion was caused
by the dates the amended petitions were due. The final order states that an amended
hearing request is due 10 days from the date it was issued, not received. Waiver
recipients are accustomed to the deadlines for hearing requests being 10 days from
receipt.
54. It is unknown at this time how many waiver recipients have received a final
order and how many failed to file an amended hearing request or did not file a timely one.
William Layton Lyons
55. Mr. Lyons requires 24 hour daily care due to his severe cognitive and motor
developmental growth patterns secondary to hexafluenza meningitis contracted at the age
of 9 months. He has tardive dyskinesia and is unable to complete any of his daily living
skills without substantial assistance. He receives medically necessary services through
the DD waiver. His annual cost plan totals $49,247. Although he lives with his parents,
both are employed. His parents take care of him and provide his services when they are
at home or when a provider is unavailable.
56. Mr. Lyons received a notice on or about September 7, 2008 advising him that he
was assigned to tier 3 with a cap of $35,000. He filed his hearing request with APD on
September 10, 2008. A copy of the initial petition is attached hereto as Exhibit F. As he
filed a timely hearing request he has not suffered a reduction in services.
57. APD issued an Order of Incomplete Hearing Request which was received on
September 26, 2008. A copy of the Order of Incomplete hearing request is attached
hereto as Exhibit G.
13
58. In response to the Order of Incomplete hearing request, on September 26, 2008,
Mr. Lyons’ attorney filed a “Response to Order of Incomplete Hearing Request,
Amended Petition and Notice of Appearance of Counsel”, a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit H.
59. On December 1, 2008, APD issued Mr. Lyons a Final Order Denying Hearing
Request. A copy of the final order was not served on his counsel. On December 17, the
undersigned filed a response to the final order and second amended petition, basically
incorporating by reference the allegations in the original and amended petition.
60. Neither Mr. Lyons nor his counsel has received any indication that APD has now
accepted the second amended petition and will refer the case for hearing.
Francesca Correa
61. Ms. Correa is a person with autism and serious behavior disorders. She is
nonverbal although her caregivers and family have learned to read her facial expressions,
body language and other signs including her aggression as a form of communication.
She functions at the level of a 2nd
to 4th
grader and cannot be left unsupervised. She
receives behavior analysis services 2 hour a week, behavior assistant services 2 hours a
day, and companion services 8 hours a week. Ms. Correa’s annual cost plan for these
services is $24,136. Her mother provides for her care the rest of the time.
62. Through the school system, Ms. Correa attends school with a full time
paraprofessional. During the school day, Ms. Correa does not receive the waiver
services.
63. Ms. Correa’s mother, Lorraine, is a single parent with three children including
Ms. Correa and her twin Nadieska both of whom have autism and behavior disorders.
14
Lorraine has recently suffered serious medical problems which render her unable to
properly care for her children without the supports they receive through the waiver.
64. On September 2nd
, 2008 APD issued a notice assigning Ms. Correa to tier 4 with
a cap of $14,000. APD also issued a notice to Nadieska assigning her to tier 4. In tier 4,
companion services are not available.
65. On September 9, 2008, Lorraine filed individual hearing requests for each of her
daughters. A copy of the hearing requests are attached hereto as Exhibits I and J. The
hearing requests stated reasons for her belief that the tier assignments were in error.
66. On December 4, 2008, APD issued the generic final order to Ms. Correa. Her
twin sister’s case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings4, (DOAH).
67. Lorraine is now in the untenable position of having one daughter’s petition
dismissed as insufficient while the other daughter’s nearly identical petition has been
referred for formal hearing.
68. Ms. Correa, through counsel, filed a response to the final order. To date, no
response has been received from APD on whether the amended pleading is sufficient to
afford Ms. Correa the same hearing rights as her sister.
John Bodack
69. John Bodack was born with a benign brain tumor that caused developmental
delays. He also has several health problems such as diverticulitis. He requires periodic
dental services. Mr. Bodack was living independently with supports until about March of
2008, when due to financial problems, he had to move back with his father. He receives
the services of a companion 15 hours a week to assist him in attending medical and dental
appointments and safely engaging in community activities. Mr. Bodack also has the
4 N.C. vs APD, DOAH case number 0800613APD
15
services of a job coach to assist him with employment issues and receives specialized
mental health services. Mr. Bodack is employed 25 hours a week with the assistance of
the services he receives through the waiver, including transportation. His father assists
with money management, room and board and companionship and support during the
hours Mr. Bodack does not receive or cannot access waiver services. Mr. Bodack’s
stated goal is to eventually live independently again with supported living services
through the waiver.
70. Mr. Bodack’s cost plan for July 1, 2008 through June 30th
, 2009 is $27,941. APD
placed Mr. Bodack in tier 4 with a cap of $14,000. Tier 4 does not have companion,
dental or specialized mental health services, leaving Mr. Bodack without the supports he
needs to maintain and develop skills to continue as a contributing member of the
community.
71. After receipt of the generic notice, Mr. Bodack filed a Request for Hearing on
September 9, 2008 and sought legal assistance from the Advocacy Center. A copy of the
Request for Hearing is attached as Exhibit K to this complaint. It is Mr. Bodack’s belief
that his request for hearing is sufficient to afford him a hearing on the issue of the error of
the tier assignment. On September 12, 2008, he received a letter from APD
acknowledging receipt of the hearing request and advising him that his services would
continue pending the hearing process. On December 15th
, in an abundance of caution,
Mr. Bodack’s counsel filed an amended petition.
72. To date, APD has not taken any action on Mr. Bodack’s hearing request. He
worries about his case and calls his counsel and the Center’s staff periodically to find out
the status of his case. He is afraid his request for hearing will be dismissed and he will
16
lose his essential supports.
The Advocacy Center
73. During the month of September, 2008, the Center received over 200 inquiries and
172 requests for assistance with tier hearings. It provided technical assistance to a
majority of individuals and its attorneys are providing direct legal assistance to 76 waiver
recipients in the administrative actions challenging the tier placements. It has also posted
information on its website about the tier implementation for use of affected waiver
recipients, families and stakeholders.
74. All the persons who contacted the Center filed their individual hearing requests
without assistance of counsel. The Center attorneys reviewed the requests for hearing of
172 persons and contend that they stated disputed issues of material fact to challenge the
tier assignments to confer standing for formal hearing.
75. In addition to the individual Plaintiffs, some of the Center’s clients include:
a. a 12 year old waiver recipient with autism, immune system dysfunction,
and seizure disorder, mental health and life-threatening behavior issues,
including incidents of physical aggression. He lives with his physically
disabled mother and was placed in tier 4 despite a cost plan of more than
$28,000 of behavior services. APD issued a final order on December 1,
2008;
b. a waiver recipient with severe mental health and behavioral issues, subject
to both aggressive and destructive tendencies. His primary caregivers are
his 70+ year old parents who cannot control their son without the $51,609
worth of services he receives. He has now been placed in Tier 4, capping
his services at $14,792. No indication from APD has been received as to
the disposition of his case;
c. a 41 year old waiver recipient with cerebral palsy and mental retardation
who resides in a group home. She has behavior problems, balance
problems and is now using a walker. She also has a life threatening
infection which requires hospitalization, frequent treatments and
additional supervision. She has serious gum disease. She takes a lot of
prescribed medications. She must be supervised at all times. Her health is
17
deteriorating and her needs for services are increasing due to her age and
medical condition. Her cost plan services total $44,393.52. APD
assigned her to tier 3. A final order was issued but it is unclear of the
effective date as the order contains 3 different dates;
d. a 77 year old waiver recipient who has no family and who has lived in a
group home for over 10 years. His cost plan is $68,800, yet APD placed
him in tier 2. There has been no indication from APD whether his hearing
request will be accepted;
e. a married couple, both waiver recipients, with severe medical and
behavioral problems. They live independently with supports. Both were
placed in tier 3 and will require institutionalization should their services be
reduced. The wife’s cost plan is $64,000. The husband’s cost plan is
almost $60,000. The husband’s hearing request was referred to DOAH for
hearing. There has been no word on the wife’s hearing request despite
their attorney’s repeated request to have the cases heard together;
f. a 27 year old waiver recipient with mental retardation, seizure disorder
and autism. He has behavior problems which tend to escalate when he
does not have an activity. He lives in the family home with his aging
parents. He is 6 feet tall and weighs over 200 pounds. His father is not
physically able to take care of him and his mother works full time. His
cost plan exceeds $55,000, yet APD placed him in tier 3. APD issued a
final order denying his hearing request;
g. A 19 year old waiver recipient with cerebral palsy with spastic
quadriplegia, generative osteoarthritis, scoliosis, and respiratory disease.
She lives with her mother who has cerebral palsy and is unable to care for
her. APD placed her in tier 4 and denied her request for hearing.
h. APD also denied a hearing request to a 28 year old group home resident
with mental retardation, Rett Syndrome, epilepsy, and neuromuscular
degenerative disease. She currently receives dietician services, medication
review, consumable medical supplies, transportation services, residential
habilitation services, dental services, adult day training, and support
coordination. She was placed in tier 3 despite a cost plan exceeding
$58,000.
76. Of the 172 tier assignments reviewed, the Center found several patterns in the
manner in which tier assignments were made. For example,
a. A majority of waiver recipients living in their own homes or with family
in the family home were assigned to tiers 3 & 4, regardless of identified
needs and services the individual currently receives.
18
b. APD tier assignments routinely reduce services in excess of $10,000 and
some as much as $30 - 40,000.
c. APD assigned waiver recipients to tier 4 who were receiving companion
services, adult dental services and specialized mental health services.
These services are not available to tier 4 waiver recipients.
d. Elderly waiver recipients in declining health have been assigned to a tier
that substantially reduces services and does not allow for meeting service
needs as their condition worsens.
e. Adult waiver recipients living at home with parents who are in their 70's
and can no longer provide services, were assigned tiers where services
such as respite and personal care assistance are reduced to unsustainable
level.
f. Waiver recipients in group home placement received tier assignments
which substantially reduce residential rehabilitation services placing them
in danger of institutionalization.
g. Waiver recipients who reside with single working parents are assigned to
tiers which give the parent the choice of losing their job or
institutionalizing their child.
h. Waiver recipients in group homes, family homes and supported living
were assigned to tiers which required substantial reductions in services
such as meaningful day activity and adult day training, which may lead to
increased behavior problems, increased requests for more expensive
services or institutionalization.
77. Of the 72 cases where the Center provides direct legal representation, three have
been referred to DOAH and eleven have received final orders. One case is under appeal
as the waiver recipient failed to file an amended petition because he did not understand
the provision of the final order concerning amended petitions.
78. In the tier waiver applications submitted to the federal government, AHCA
describes the procedures Florida uses to provide the opportunity to request a fair hearing.
In Appendix F: Participant Rights of the CMS waiver application form, a state must
19
provide assurances that it will grant an opportunity to request a fair hearing to waiver
recipients if the state agency takes action to suspend, terminate, or reduce services.
79. The description of the procedures AHCA submitted in Appendix F of the 4
waivers Applications implementing the tiers includes the statement that APD will provide
a notice to recipients. A copy of Appendix F for the tier 2 waiver application is attached
to this complaint at page 13 as Exhibit L.
80. The Appendix F procedure states the contents of the notice. The procedure
assures CMS that the notice will state: “If you disagree with the Agency’s decision, you
have the right to an administrative hearing before the division of administrative hearings
(DOAH) to dispute that decision.”
81. Tellingly, in the Appendix F procedure, AHCA assures CMS that to request a
hearing “no specific form is required.” (Emphasis added).
82. The final orders disproportionally adversely affect the vast majority of waiver
recipients who are unrepresented by counsel. Most individuals who filed requests for
hearing are not represented by counsel.
83. Waiver recipients who did not file an amended petition will have their services
reduced as of the date of their final order. They will suffer irreparable harm by the loss
of medical and behavioral therapies essential to their well being, and the denial of their
right to hearing. Many will be at risk for institutionalization. Many will languish in their
home without meaningful day activities, and their behavior problems will increase.
Others will lose social and rehabilitative skills.
84. There is no other relief available to Plaintiffs to redress the violation of rights and
loss of essential services. Plaintiffs and other waiver recipients do not know if APD will
20
grant hearings on their amended petitions. It is Plaintiffs’ belief that since the original
petitions in their individual cases met the requirements for formal hearing, there is no
guarantee that APD won’t proceed to issue another final order.
Applicable Law
85. Under federal Medicaid law, waiver recipients are entitled to fair hearings when
services are reduced or denied. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3), 42 C.F.R. § 431.200 et seq.,
Cramer v. Chiles, 33 F.Supp.2d 1342, 1347-49 (S.D.Fla.1999).
86. 42 C.F.R. 431.200 (2) prescribes procedures for an opportunity for a hearing if the
State agency takes action to suspend, terminate, or reduce services. Pursuant to 42 C.F.R.
431.220 (2) the Agency “must” grant a request for a hearing to any recipient who requests
it because they believe the agency “has taken an action erroneously.”
87. Florida Statute 120.569 and 120.57 provides for two types of hearings when a
party’s substantial interests are determined by an agency. The agency may determine
there is a disputed issue of material fact and refer the matter to the DOAH for a formal
hearing. However, should there be no disputed issue of material fact, the agency must
“give parties or their counsel the option, at a convenient time and place, to present to the
agency or hearing officer written or oral evidence in opposition to the action of the
agency or to its refusal to act, or a written statement challenging the grounds upon which
the agency has chosen to justify its action or inaction.” F.S. 120.57(2), Florida Statutes.
88. Section and 393.0651(3), (8), Florida Statutes provides that APD must grant a
formal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1) when material facts are in dispute and an
applicant or client is “determined by the agency to be ineligible for developmental
services,” if the applicant or client “is substantially affected by the ... initial family or
21
individual support plan, or the annual review thereof.” § 393.065(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); §
393.0651(8), Fla. Stat. (2005); J.M. v APD, 938 So.2d 535, 541(1st DCA 2006).
89. Waiver recipients are entitled to a hearing either before the APD Director or
DOAH. J.M. v APD, 938 So.2d 535, 536 (1st DCA 2006). In cases where a waiver
recipient has stated disputed issues of material fact in the petition, she is entitled to a
formal hearing. JM at 536, §120.57, Fla. Stats.
90. As a tier is assigned based on the individual’s assessment process and
characteristics, the change in law provision of 42 CFR 431.220 does not apply in this
case. Waiver recipients are entitled to a hearing pursuant to 42 CFR 431.220 (a)(2).
91. In cases where APD believes no disputed issues of material fact are alleged in
the petition, section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, requires that an informal hearing be held
and provides that should disputed issues of material fact arise during the informal
proceedings, the case should be referred to DOAH unless the parties agree to continue
with the informal hearing.
92. APD’s conduct in denying hearing requests to thousands of Medicaid waiver
recipients violates both federal and state provisions that grant the due process rights to the
affected waiver recipients.
93. APD’s attempt to provide one opportunity to amend a request for hearing within
the short time frame of 10 days from the date the final order is issued inserted into a
convoluted and confusing four page final order does not serve to cure the violation of the
waiver recipient’s right to a hearing, and violates federal and state statutes and rules cited
above.
94. The final order is confusing to waiver recipients as they do not have legal training
22
or expertise.
95. APD’s final order fails to state findings of fact and conclusions of law as required
by section 120.569, Florida Statutes. Without specific findings of fact stating the alleged
deficiencies in a waiver recipient’s petition, the remedial provision allowing amendment
of the petition is inadequate and illusory.
96. The final order’s provision allowing 10 days to amend hearing requests further is
rendered useless by the confusing instructions on the date the amended petition is due.
The final order states that the effective date of the final order is the date it is “rendered”
and amended petitions are due from the date the final order is rendered. Rendition is not
defined and the specific date of rendition is not identified as such.
97. There is no guarantee that the amended petitions will secure a hearing, especially
since numerous petitions APD has dismissed, such as those of the individual plaintiffs in
this action, actually comply with the requirements for formal hearing found in ch 120.569
and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
98. The issuance of the final orders discriminates against the thousand of recipients
who do not have legal counsel, cannot afford a lawyer, and are confused by the
requirements of the final orders.
COUNT ONE –DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
99. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 98 of this complaint.
100. APD’s generic final order places in doubt the fair hearing rights of waiver
recipients, including Plaintiffs.
101. There is no adequate administrative or legal remedy available to waive recipients.
APD’s conduct in issuing deficient, generic and confusing final orders denying fair
23
hearings to waiver recipients is so egregious as to render any administrative relief an
exercise in futility. Services reduced through the tier assignments do not continue during
lengthy appeals to the District Court.
102. APD has issued and will continue issuing the final order to thousands of waiver
recipients who filed timely requests for hearing.
103. Defendant APD has created a present controversy by denying hearing rights to
waiver recipients who filed timely requests for hearing challenging the facts upon which
APD’s individual tier assignments were made.
104. It is Plaintiffs’ belief that the grounds upon which defendant APD based the
hearing denials are erroneous and deprive plaintiffs of the right to hearing afforded by
sections 393.0661, 393.125, Section 393.065(8), 120.569 and 120.567, Florida Statutes.
See: JM v AP, 938 So.2d 535, 536 (1st DCA 2006).
105. Plaintiffs are in actual need of a declaration of the right to an administrative
hearing under sections 393.0661, 393.125, Section 393.065(8), 120.569 and 120.567,
Florida Statutes.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this court
1. Find that the Plaintiffs and waiver recipients are entitled to an administrative
hearing by filing a request for hearing to challenge the tier assignment pursuant to
393.0661, 393.125, Section 393.065(8), 120.569 and 120.567, Florida Statutes; 42 U.S.C.
§ 1396a(a)(3), 42 C.F.R. § 431.200; and the procedures for referring requests for fair
hearings to DOAH in the waiver applications approved by CMS.
2. Find that final order’s provision to amend the complaint within ten days of the
rendition is insufficient to ensure the right of waiver recipients to an administrative
24
hearing.
3. Order APD to refer to DOAH for formal hearing the cases of waiver recipients
who were issued final orders denying hearing requests, and reinstate services to waiver
recipients who failed to amend or otherwise respond to the final order for the duration of
the fair hearing process.
4. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
5. Provide such other relief as may be proper.
COUNT 2 – MANDATORY PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
106. Plaintiffs reallege and restate paragraphs 1 through 105 of this complaint.
107. APD’s action in denying hearing requests to thousands of waiver recipients is so
egregious as to render any administrative relief a useless exercise.
108. Appellate relief, though available, will not be an effective remedy as services will
not continue through the appeal.
109. Plaintiffs and thousand others have or will suffer immediate irreparable harm as a
result of the Final Orders. Waiver recipients whose services are reduced or terminated
are at imminent risk of neglect, damage to their health and safety, and institutionalization.
As a result of the Final Orders, Plaintiffs and other waiver recipients will immediately
lose services determined to be medically necessary and essential for their health, safety
and continued community placements.
110. The loss of services will subject waiver recipients to go without assistance with
toileting, meal preparation, bathing, transport, behavior therapies, occupational therapies,
consumable supplies such as formula or adult diapers, specialized mental health services,
dental care, meaningful day treatment activities, socialization activities, supported
25
employment, residential habilitation, behavior assistance, supported living services, job
coaching and other essential services to prevent deterioration, achieve new or continue
skills, meet medical and adaptive needs and protect them from harm. None of these
services are available from any other source or in the community.
111. Waiver recipients are at imminent risk of institutionalization as a result of the
denials of hearing. This is particularly true for waiver recipients in group homes with no
family or community supports, waiver recipients who have intense behavioral issues such
as aggression, waiver recipients living in their own home and waiver recipients living at
home with single working parents or elderly parents who can no longer take care of them
without assistance.
112. As a result of the denial of their right to hearing, waiver recipients and Plaintiffs
will suffer permanent irreparable harm.
113. Plaintiffs and other waiver recipients who are institutionalized as a result of the
Final Orders Denying Hearing will suffer permanent irreparable harm.
114. The loss of services to 3500 waiver recipients will cause group homes to close,
and other waiver service providers to go out of business or cease providing services to
waiver recipients. The imminent loss of providers should services not be reinstated or
continued pending resolution of this action will cause irreparable harm to waiver
recipients and Plaintiffs.
115. A temporary injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo pending resolution
of this action.
116. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Waiver recipients
whose services are reduced or denied are entitled to a fair hearing under sections
26
393.0661, 393.065, 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3),
42 C.F.R. 431.200 (2).
117. Florida statute 393.0661 specifically instructs APD to conduct individual
evaluation of a recipient’s needs in making tier assignments. APD’s implementation of
the statute substantially affects the medically necessary services a waiver recipient
receives and amounts to a valid allegation of an erroneous action. Thus, any challenge to
the tier assignment disputes the material fact that the tier assignment is in error and
subject to be resolved through the fair hearing process.
118. The interests of the waiver recipients in continuing to receive services outweigh
the interests of APD in reducing its budget deficit. There is no guarantee that all the
hearings requested will result in change of tier assignment, so the potential loss of funds
to the state is not ascertainable until hearings are concluded. Additionally, community
services are substantially less expensive than services in an ICF/DD, to which waiver
recipients are entitled. In these times of budgetary constraints, more expensive options in
service provision should be avoided.
119. The interests of the State of Florida will be adversely affected by the failure of the
State to protect its most fragile of citizens from neglect and harm.
Wherefore Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court:
1. Find that Defendant APD violated the waiver recipients’ and plaintiffs’ right to
administrative hearings
2. Issue a temporary injunction maintaining the status quo and ordering Defendant
APD to continue or reinstate services during the pendency of these proceedings to all
waiver recipients who received or were issued a final order denying hearing request.
27
3. Issue a temporary injunction ordering Defendant APD to immediately cease and
desist from issuing final orders denying hearing requests to waiver recipients during the
pendency of this action.
4. Issue a permanent injunction requiring defendant APD to refer all hearing
requests to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for full evidentiary hearings
and to continue or reinstate services to all persons who filed hearing requests within 10
days of receipt of the Notice and were denied a hearing.
5. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
6. Provide such other relief as may be proper.
Dated in Tallahassee, Florida this ___ day of January 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Martha F. Barrera, Fla. Bar No. 234036
Advocacy Center for Persons
With Disabilities, Inc.
2728 Centerview Drive, Suite 102
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 488-9071
Fax: (850) 488-8640